Ex Parte Koop

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 28, 2019

14179753 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/179,753 75576 7590 Johnson Controls, Inc. c/o Fletcher Yoder PC P.O. Box 692289 Houston, TX 77269 02/13/2014 04/01/2019 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Edward N. Koop UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. 142654.0lOSUS (JOCI:0433) CONFIRMATION NO. 9118 EXAMINER PANCHOLI, VISHAL J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3754 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/01/2019 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): docket@fyiplaw.com powell@fyiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte EDWARD N. KOOP Appeal2017-003819 Application 14/179,753 Technology Center 3700 Before BRETT C. MARTIN, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2017-003819 Application 14/179,753 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. THE INVENTION Appellant's claims are directed generally to "a zone balancing damper for an HVAC system." Spec. ,r 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A damper comprising: a tubular duct; a circular blade disposed within the tubular duct; and a shaft disposed within the tubular duct, wherein the shaft extends through a hole in the circular blade. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Ludeman Royalty Zelczer Jaromin us 3,627,261 us 5,465,756 us 6,105,927 US 2011/0036438 Al REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Dec. 14, 1971 Nov. 14, 1995 Aug. 22, 2000 Feb. 17, 2011 Claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 13, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I02(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zelczer. Final Act. 2. Claims 2--4 and 14--16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Zelczer and Royalty. Final Act. 3. 2 Appeal2017-003819 Application 14/179,753 Claims 7, 8, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Zelczer and Jaromin. Final Act. 4. Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Zelczer and Ludeman. Final Act. 5. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Zelczer, Royalty, and Jaromin. Final Act. 6. ANALYSIS All of the Examiner's rejections are based at least in part upon the finding that Zelczer teaches the claimed shaft extending through the damper blade as found in each of independent claims 1, 12, and 13. According to the Examiner, Zelczer teaches this limitation because its shaft 158 extends through plate 121 via its insertion into slot 157. See, e.g., Ans. 8. Our analysis focuses on the interpretation of the recitation of "extends through" as found in the claims. The Examiner's finding relies on an interpretation whereby any penetration in any direction of a shaft that results in some part of the shaft residing on each side of the damper plate meets this limitation. Id. We do not agree with this interpretation. Appellant is correct that "there is a difference between a shaft that extends through a hole and a bushing that extends into and is fitted into a slot," which is what is taught in Zelczer. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant is correct that Zelczer teaches a different shaft 139 that "extends through" opening 145, which is more akin to the proper interpretation as found in the claims, and so Zelczer indicates appreciation of this difference. Id. The claimed recitation that the shaft "extends through" a hole in the blade indicates a direction of the shaft because the shaft "extends" along its 3 Appeal2017-003819 Application 14/179,753 longitudinal axis. This interpretation is consistent with the Specification, which shows that a shaft that "extends through" the blade passes through it at some angle greater than zero degrees. See, e.g., Figs. 1, 7, ,r 26 ("Shaft 106 extends from bearing 108 through blade 104 and coupling 112 .... "). As such, Zelczer's bushing 158 does not extend through plate 121 via its insertion into slot 157, but merely extends into the plate. Additionally, the insertion angle is at zero degrees, which also would not fall within our interpretation of the phrase. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of any of the claims due to this improper interpretation of Zelczer. Furthermore, regarding claim 13, the Examiner misinterprets the claim language relating to the open and closed positions. The Examiner reads the claim language such that the rotation of the plate 180 degrees is not associated with the claimed open and closed positions. Ans. 10. As properly read, the claimed open and closed positions are linked to the 0- and 180-degree recitations, such that the plate rotates from a closed, 0-degree position, to an open, 180-degree position. The Examiner's interpretation ignores this link and merely states that Zelczer is capable of rotating 180 degrees while also moving through both an open and closed position. Appellant is correct that "Zelczer will return the vane to its original position with 180 degrees of rotation," as opposed to what is required by the claim language at issue. Appeal Br. 12. As such, and for this additional reason, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 13. DECISION For the above reasons, we REVERSE the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20. REVERSED 4